C 299/38 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 26.9.

98

In support of his application he argues, inter alia: Communities on 13 July 1998 by Jean Lesueur, resident in Brussels, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, VeÂroniqueÐ that the author of the decision lacked jurisdiction or Leclercq, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise Parmentier, of the that the decision lacks any constitutional or legal basis Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at in that the defendant is, on the basis of a simple the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, rue de declaration which does not constitute an amendment Cessange. or provision having the force of primary law, purporting to enact a piece of delegated legislation The applicant claims that the Court should: which it is not constitutionally authorised to adopt. Furthermore, the applicant argues that there is a Ð annul the Council decision of 6 October 1997 refusing discrepancy between the scope of the declaration, the request for refund of that part of the pension which presumably constitutes the basis of the disputed rights transferred to the Community pensions regime decision, and the decision itself, in that the decision is which was not taken into consideration in the general in nature, calculation of the pensionable service to be taken into account pursuant to Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to theÐ breach of Articles 11, 12, 16 and 17 of the Staff Staff Regulations, Regulations in so far as the disputed decision institutes security screening by the national authorities and Ð order the Council to pay the costs. withdraws the appointing authority's autonomous power to adopt a decision in the event that the national authorities' opinion is negative and places Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: officials and employees affected by such screening in a position of dependence. Similarly, both Article 23 of The pleas in law and main arguments are those already the Staff Regulations and the Protocol on Privileges raised in Case T-103/98 Kristensen v. Council (1). and Immunities of the European Communities have, according to the applicant, been ignored in so far as they provide for a legal system of official immunity in (1) See page 36 of this Official Journal. relation to the accomplishment of tasks entrusted to officials,

Ð breach of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations in so far

as the disputed decision provides for the constitution of a security file in addition to the single file referred Action brought on 20 July 1998 by RJB Mining plc to in Article 26, against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-110/98)Ð breach of Article 24 of the Treaty establishing a single (98/C 299/69) Council and a single Commission of the European Communities of 8 April 1965, and of the Council (Language of the case: English) decision of 23 June 1981 establishing a concertation procedure, breach of essential procedural requirements and hierarchy of legal sources in so far as the disputed An action against the Commission of the European decision, which is a simple decision, implicitly Communities was brought before the Court of First purports to amend several provisions of the Staff Instance of the European Communities on 20 July 1998 Regulations which are statutory in nature. In by RJB Mining plc, represented by Mark Brealey and particular, there was no prior proposal by the Jonathan Lawrence, with an address for service in Commission neither were the institutions consulted. Luxembourg at the offices of Arendt & Medernach, 8Ð 10, rue Mathias Hardt, boite postale 39.(1) OJ L 140, 12.5.1998, p. 12. The applicant claims that the Court should:

Ð annul the Commission Decision of 10 June 1998

relating to financial interventions from Germany to the coal industry in 1997, which purports to authoriseAction brought on 13 July 1998 by Jean Lesueur against Germany to grant aid to its coal industry, and the Council of the European Union (Case T-107/98) Ð order that the Commission pay the costs of the action, (98/C 299/68) including those of the applicant.

(Language of the case: French) Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:

An action against the Council of the European Union was The applicant is an independently owned coal-miningbrought before the Court of First Instance of the European company incorporated in England and Wales. Its major26.9.98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 299/39

customers are the UK electricity power generators, but it aid to mines which, on the applicant's ownis also trying to find a market for its coal overseas, in calculations and those of its advisers, can never beparticular in Germany and Spain. On 10 June 1998, the viable. Second, the effect of the aid is contributingCommission adopted the contested Decision which was towards reducing permanently the production capacityaddressed to Germany. Article 1 of the Decision purported of the lowest cost large-scale producer of steam coal into approve operating aid of DEM 6 299 million under the Community and the producer with the best (if notArticle 3 of the Code (1), closure aid of DEM 3 205 the only) long-term prospects of viability havingmillion under Article 4 of the Code, operating aid of regard to current world market conditions.DEM 87 million of the Code to maintain undergroundminers, aid of DEM 200 million to cover exceptional (1) Commission Decision No 3632/93/ECSC of 28 Decemberlosses under Article 5 of the Code to Ruhrkohle AG, 1993, establishing Community rules for State aid to the coalSaarbergwerke AG, Preussag Anthrazit GmbH and Sophia industry (OJ L 329, 30.12.1993, p. 12).Jacob GmbH and, finally, aid of DEM 609,2 million tocover exceptional costs under Article 5 of the Code toRuhrkohle AG, Saarbergwerke AG and Sophia Jacob AG,enabling those companies to cover the cost which resultand have resulted from the restructuring of the coalindustry and which do not relate to current production.

Action brought on 20 July 1998 by RJB Mining plc

The applicant claims to be gravely concerned by this against the Commission of the European Communitiesdecision, as the British coal industry has over the last 10years undergone massive restructuring and rationalisation. (Case T-111/98) (98/C 299/70)The applicant seeks annulment of the contested decisionon the grounds of: (Language of the case: English)

Ð lack of competence: the Code expressly provides that

no aid may be granted until it has been approved by An action against the Commission of the European the Commission. In breach of this requirement, the Communities was brought before the Court of First Commission on 10 June 1998 apparently purported to Instance of the European Communities on 20 July 1998 approve retroactively aid which had already been by RJB Mining plc, represented by Mark Brealey and granted by the German Government in 1997, Jonathan Lawrence, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Offices of Arendt & Medernach, 8Ð 10, rue Mathias Hardt, boite postale 39.Ð lack of reasoning: despite the requirement of transparency on the ECSC Treaty, the contested Decision fails to explain the basis on which the aid was granted. Under the Code, operating aid can only The applicant claims that the Court should: be granted if an undertaking or production unit has a reasonable prospect of achieving viability within the foreseeable future, yet the contested Decision contains Ð annul the Commission Decision of 3 June 1998 no facts which would enable the applicant to verify relating to financial interventions from Spain to the the viability of any mine. Similarly, the Code provides coal industry from 1994 to 1998, which purport to that closure aid can only be granted if the relevant authorise Spain to grant aid to its coal industry, and production unit will (save in exceptional circumstances) close at a date prior to 2002. The contested Decision does not specify any dates for closure of production units. Moreover, the contested Ð order that the Commission pay the costs of the action, Decision implicitly rejects, without reasons, a including those of the applicant. complaint field with the Commission by the applicant on 5 May 1998, Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:

Ð infringement of the principle of good administration:

the applicant formally complained about the grant of The applicant is the same as in Case T-110/98 (application the German aid on 5 May 1998. On 10 June 1998 the for the annulment of the Commission Decision of 10 June Commission acknowledged receipt of the complaint 1998 relating to financial interventions from Germany to and stated that the applicant would be kept informed. the coal industry in 1997). Yet on the same day the Commission adopted the contested Decision,

On 3 June 1998 the Commission adopted the three

Ð manifest infringement of the Treaty and the Code: contested Decisions which were addressed to the Kingdom First, the contested Decision has purported to approve of Spain: the first Decision relates to aid from Spain to its